You must post a clear and direct question in the title. The title may contain two, short, necessary context sentences.
No text is allowed in the textbox. Your thoughts/responses to the question can go in the comments section. more >>

Any post asking for advice should be generic and not specific to your situation alone. more >>

1) there's not a "Syrian rebellion". There's more like a dozen or more different factions. Some of which are as likely to shoot each other as the government.

2) someone correct me on this if needed, but it's not that there is an al-Qaeda faction in Syria. There's one or more groups of rebels who are known to support al-Qaeda. Slight but important difference.

3) al-Qaeda itself is splintered into multiple factions. Sometimes they even fight each other. So they might not all have access to the same things.

4) just because you can manage to smuggle sarin into one place doesn't mean you can get it into another.

Taking responsibility doesn't mean much. It seems UN inspectors and other technical experts have agreed that the dispersal of the gas indicates a volume of gas and a dispersal method that only the Syrian government could achieve. None of the other groups present have the means to do it.

One other aside here - IF the opposition used chemical weapons, the intent would have been to make it look like Assad did it, and prompt a response from the West. That dynamic didn't exist in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Because they do not have chemical weapons, A because they do not have the proper delivery system to do so, and B to accompany your point they would have used them in Afghanistan and Iraq if they had them. Al Qaeda does not have a morale code keeping them from using chemical weapons, chances are if they had them they would use them.

What war? We aren't sending troops, we are hitting isolated military targets to reduce Syrian military capabilities. You act like this would be Iraq, and that is ludicrous. The strikes on Syria would last maybe a few days, not years.

1) A random attack on a civilian location in Syria can be blamed Assad and get the west's involvement. An attack on a military installation far from any Syrian troops is hard to blame on Assad and would likely mean the west would join Assads side to defeat the terrorists.

2) Its likely there are CIA and Mossad guys embedded with the terrorists (there are several reporters from BBC etc). Rumours of an chemical weapon attack on civilians to bring the west into the conflict would likely to be ignored. Rumours of an chemical weapon attack on American troops would be quickly investigated and put down.

And yet some would say the accusations against Assad are western propaganda. Try not to see thing only from one viewpoint.

In fact, the rebels were fingered earlier this year by the UN for using sarin gas in a strike unrelated those that occurred recently, so you claim that the rebels have none directly contradicts the UN, whose report I am more inclined to believe.

This war isn't black-and-white, there is not good or bad side, it's not even clear that there are 'sides'. So far the evidence against Assad has been incredibly weak, non-existant even. It hasn't swayed the UN, or many other countries other than France & Britain, and we are rightly sceptical after the claims made about Iraq which were proven to be bogus.

"It hasn't swayed the UN". . . Syria is a huge Russian military customer, and Russia has vowed to block anything in the security council. For this reason, there will be no vote in the UN.

All reports from French investigation point to use of gas by the Syrian military, but have no conclusive evidence on who directed the use of those weapons. It can not be tied to Assad, plus the US (or Europe for that matter) really have no interest in who comes out on top in Syria, so why get involved?

Russia is on the security council, it doesn't dictate to other UN organisation what to report.

Whilst there is no evidence that Assad used gas shells, Carla Del Ponte working for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said back in May that the Rebels looked to be responsible for a Sarin gas attack.

I'm going to call you out on your claim that the western powers have no interest in who leads Syria. The west has been trying to control the middle east for time immemorial. Imperialism is gone, but politics has more or less replaced this. The bribery of friendly states and military coercion of hostile states has become the preferred method of western states hoping to preserve their influence over their former colonies. From the US lead coup in Iran, to the oil-motives of the Iraq war, the west wants control, and that is why we have a stake in this.

That's bs simply because the UN doesn't investigate who uses chemical weapons, it only confirms that they were used at all. Stop getting your political views from bloggers and horribly biased news sources.

What I heard was: "If the news doesn't agree with me, it must be biased."

You're wrong. Whilst there is no evidence that Assad used gas shells, Carla Del Ponte working for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said back in May that the Rebels looked to be responsible for a Sarin gas attack. So yes, the UN has investigated who used the weapons.

no , i am saying that if that were to happen all pretext of civility in the war on terror would end. No more courts, no more asking for permission to cross borders, no more justification to the public...just straight up all out warfare on a scale the world has not seen. you think photos of prisoners being treated poorly would matter? not one bit...there would be no more prisoners...none. If you are involved you would be dead, no tribunal, no due process, nothing, just death and killing. the pretext of a free nation would be gone.

Yes I agree. The world is already very intolerant to terrorist, many countries just can't get involved or lack the ability to crack down in the organizations within their own borders. But if al Qaeda stated using weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons qualify as that) very few people would think we needed to use much restraint in stopping that.

Syria shares a border with Iraq and Al Qaeda friendly Iran is the only thing between Iraq and Afghanistan. And "Syrian Al Qaeda is different than Afghanistani Al Qaeda" is news to me. I've never seen that distinction made before.